Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @01:25PM
from the what-hath-god-wrought dept.

RobotRunAmok writes "The New York City Police Department announced Tuesday that bloggers and others who publish on the Web will now be eligible for press credentials. The move comes as a result of a lawsuit filed in 2008 by three Web journalists who were denied press passes. In New York, journalists with press passes are typically allowed to cross police barricades at public events. 'Events that will qualify include city-sponsored activity — like a press conference or parade — as well as emergencies where the city has set up do-not-cross lines. The proposal also allows inexperienced journalists to obtain single-use press passes. Longtime civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel, who represented the journalists who sued, says the city will now decide who a journalist is by looking at the type of work they do, and not the organization they write for.'"

Let's add an apprenticeship rule... let people who have a press pass bring in an intern/trainee so they can learn the job. Either that, or have people write about police events without the pass, and then one day when they walk up to the line hand them their pass.

Yeah, but after a while, you gain enough experience to be on your own. It also ensures that you have someone to mentor you about the obligations and rights of journalists in the real world (not just on paper).

I think you may be reminiscing about the good old days when journalism was actually a respectable profession there, pops. Journalism has devolved into corporate press releases and edutainment over the last quarter century. But that's actually beside the point.

This is about freedom of expression. Journalists should not be a special class of people who receive special privileges. Journalism isn't engineering or programming, it is fairly simple. There is no reason to limit journalism to professionals, because

There is still good journalism out there. You can't measure a profession by the lowest level material produced. And having a big company willing to vouch for you is a good sign to traditionally conservative event promoters: they're not required to let anyone in on press credentials. As far as government stuff goes, if the meeting isn't open to journalists, it's not open to the public either, and vice versa.

They don't receive special credentials because they got a degree, they receive special credentials bec

The law still does not entitle anyone to press credentials. You have to act like a journalist, the only change is that you don't have to be working for a big company. And the city can not mandate that anyone but the city honor those press credentials. So, what has really changed? It's slightly easier to break into the field of journalism. That is all.

Agreed. "Press Credentials" sounds like you get something for nothing, but I remember having to practically blow people to get a press pass. It's never a guarantee, and the only reason it has this sort of cache in NYC is because they have so many people that they've had to make a rule to keep things under control.

Anyway, breaking into the field is easy, you just have to be willing to start at the bottom.

Journalists write the most atrocious crap of all. Bloggers are often far more professional.

Why, because the Journalist is trying to sell a storey so they will write about things with zero qualifications or experience.

The blogger on the other hand is writing about their area of passion and has nothing to sell, Often the blogger will have experience and expertise in what they are doing, the same is not true for journalists.

Yea, the elite...I work with journalists every day and the word "elite" doesn't apply to any of them except the moronic "folksy" guy, and then only in his own mind.

I don't think there is anything wrong with allowing an established journalist to say, "Don't worry about this guy, he's with me." 90% of the ones I know would say that for a pint of beer, and it's not like they're hard to find (hint: pick up the dead tree product, and look at the names at the top of all the printy words).

1. Have covered such events in the past.
2. Have a measurable audience somehow... be it web, print, TV, radio, etc.
3. Haven't caused problems at previous events.

1. So, in order to cover such an event, you must have a Press Pass, and in order to get a Press Pass, you must have covered such an event.

2. In order to have an audience, you must get the news. In order to get the news, you've got to have an audience.

3. In order to get a Press Pass, you have to have covered such an event without one. Which pretty much means going past police barricades or some similar illegal activity. So, pretty much be definition, you'll have misbehaved at a previous event.

2. Have a measurable audience somehow... be it web, print, TV, radio, etc.

3. Haven't caused problems at previous events.

1. So, in order to cover such an event, you must have a Press Pass, and in order to get a Press Pass, you must have covered such an event.

2. In order to have an audience, you must get the news. In order to get the news, you've got to have an audience.

3. In order to get a Press Pass, you have to have covered such an event without one. Which pretty much means going past police barricades or some similar illegal activity. So, pretty much be definition, you'll have misbehaved at a previous event.

In summary, your requirements reduce to:

1. No-one will be issued Press Passes.

if you RTFA before issuing your screed, it states that inexperienced bloggers or other journalists can apply for a 1 day pass to cover events.

If you engage your brain before posting, you will see that this post is a rebuttal to an argument for restricting press passes to those who have already worked in the field, i.e. to working journalists, that is to say, the policy we had before the change. Meaning, the 1 day pass rule would not apply.

Get it? This wasn't a reply to the article, it was a reply to an argument against the changed policy. Meaning, your post was an absolute non sequiter, a waste of time.

Rule three sounds like it is covered by the new policy. The policy is not, 'anyone can get a press pass.' It is, 'Anyone can apply for a press pass, and if it looks anything like they have been practicing journalism, even on a blog no one reads, they will get it.' Someone with a history of disruption likely would not receive a pass in the first place, and someone who ceases to act like a journalist could have it revoked.

The main change is that you don't have to be paid, or working for a big news outlet, to

as a photographer who makes part of my income with press/arts photography, im not looking forward to this. It just means more morons crowding events and creating problems for the rest of us. Yeah, im real happy you write/shoot for some blog with 5 people who read it.

I too wish there was less competition... er uh... morons crowding events in my field of biological research. Yes, I'm really happy about having to be competitive. It would be so much easier if they would start issuing "scientist licenses" which were very difficult to get so I would have less competition and more time to procrastinate without worrying someone else will scoop me. Ooh, and with less competition, I bet demand would be higher for me and I'd get more money.

I see the degree, raise you a peer-review process, and disagree with the GP. I think that licensing (or some other vetting) is a very good thing when you need an assurance of performance - especially if there is a risk that poor performers will crowd out good ones. Licensed engineers, licensed contractors, and licensed truck drivers are all very good things, in my mind. (Despite the fact that they could be underbid by unlicensed alternatives.)

If unqualified journalists aren't going to hurt anyone, why did Brazil have a law that said you needed years of university before you could become part of the press.
Military dictatorship like to know the types of people who get to inform the people everyday.

This is starting to become the new form of journalism. The "big guys" like TV and radio owners are starting to lay off their full time staff, and replacing them with people who can report, record, and edit their own pieces who get paid by the number of reports they generate that make air.

To the average news viewer, this is almost transparent... so the standard shouldn't be "I work for CNN," but "CNN uses my iReports regularly."

I think it's great in theory, but in practice I'm always worried that this is another way for corporations to profit off the work of little guys while paying them less and giving them fewer benefits, backing, and security. Freelancing (and that's what this is) is like contracting, with all the ups and downsides that go along with it, except it's a damn sight harder for a freelancer to make a living comparable to a full-time employee than it is for a contractor to do the same.

That means more people who have less in life are free to take your job in exchange for less pay, which is still better than what they had before.

While journalists may have been able to command higher wages and standards previously, the Internet levels the playing field since journalism requires very little extra knowledge to get started. Anyone with a certain set of traits is capable of being an extremely good journalist, regardless of their educational background or social

Dear God did you really use their branded iReport. Can't there be professional freelance reporters? Do they really need to call their reports by the generic CNN iReport, isn't that kind of iTerm overused? How about I'm a regular contributor to CNN, they pay my bills as a free lance contractor, I also sub my articles out to the AP and other news organizations.

I agree. Instantaneous transmittal of info is one of the forces which are causing investigative journalism to come under severe stress, it should be one of the forces which can help it survive and reinvest itself. The NYT or CNN should not have to maintain expensive bureaus all over the world. Local citizen journalists, properly vetted and experienced, can serve that function for multiple news agencies.

I post opinions, rumors, announcements, and other "media-like" information right here on this very site in the form of comments. Unfortunately, because I don't submit stories, enter journals, or edit summaries (I don't think the/. editors do either) I am not considered a journalist.

Despite the time and effort I put into making sure my posts are factual, interesting, engaging, inciteful, and sometimes funny, my work (and I don't hesitate to call it work) here as a active contributor to the discussions surrounding each story is like dust in the wind, dude.

If you've got enough attention on Slashdot, and you've got something to say... register a domain name, get a $20-40/mo. hosting package, and link to it in your Slashdot signature. If people like you here, they'll love you there.

I post opinions, rumors, announcements, and other "media-like" information right here on this very site in the form of comments. Unfortunately, because I don't submit stories, enter journals, or edit summaries (I don't think the/. editors do either) I am not considered a journalist.

Despite the time and effort I put into making sure my posts are factual, interesting, engaging, inciteful, and sometimes funny, my work (and I don't hesitate to call it work) here as a active contributor to the discussions surrounding each story is like dust in the wind, dude.

"... the city will now decide who a journalist is by looking at the type of work they do, and not the organization they write for."

"Hi, John Doe here, reporting live on behalf of the Satanic Blog Network..."

Yes, this was my poor attempt at humor, but seriously, you just might want to know who the blogger really represents before finding out they were hired by the "wrong" people to spread mis-information, especially when the vehicles of information these days(FB, blogs, twitter) are damn near real-time.

I'm not sure why you think that a person should be barred from the press because of their beliefs or biases.

Factual reporting can be done by anyone, even if they are a huge troll.

Fact: your brother just got his retainer.

Think about the effects of mis-information spread at real-time during an emergency, with the masses just blindly following? If it caused real damage, would it be considered e-terrorism? THAT was my point in determining just who someone is representing and why they are there.

Sorry, but when I read things like this, I tend to fast-forward 3 years and 5 "cyber-attacks" from now, when the Government steps in with a "new-and-improved" E-Patriot Act...

What's been missing from the coverage the David Patterson press conferences has been the shrewd, insightful experience and reportage from the OMG ponies! perspective. The mainstream media has been suppressing that important voice since, like, forever. Mean people suck! Also, that young guy Aaron on America Idol - he would so make a great sparkly vampire someday.

On one hand this is a great victory for free speech/freedom of the press. On the other hand, if they start handing out press passes to anyone then there is a real threat for terrorists to easily get their hands on press passes. I just hope they do some kind of background check first. 'Hi I'm from Al Qaeda news and would like to bring some camera equipment backstage for the Macy's Thanksgiving day parade. Don't mind the canisters marked anthrax, it's the new Kodak anthrax film. '

I've never liked the idea of press passes, because they perpetuate the idea that there is some elite class of people called "the press", and that "freedom of the press" applies just to them. But freedom of the press, just like freedom of speech, is a right everyone has--and always was.If you want to make special arrangements with certain groups and individuals to grant them access to your private property for reporting purposes, that's your business. But I don't like the idea that certain people be given ex

I'm not worried so much about terrorists as 'journalist flash mobs' where every Tom, Dick, and Harriet with a blog and a press pass* tries to crash the police lines at an active crime scene, or a major emergency (fire, steam pipe rupture, or whatever), or major 'social' event... Whether for the purpose of actual news reporting or with other, less than noble, intentions. Blogging tends to be much more 'look at me, look at me, look at me' than it does about reporting, and the potential for abuse and problem

Sure you might have a few journalist flash mobs, but have your elite media ever asked where the maintenance cash went?
Tom, Dick or Harriet might just keep digging into records and asking the right questions of city authorities when they face the public.

No, traditional media isn't perfect and bias free, but regardless of all the political bullshit out there, I still have far more faith that I'm going to be able to filter out the bullshit from traditional media far easier than figuring out the agenda of some random blogger who's never been seen by more than 5 people before in is life.

Nice strawman argument you created for yourself there.

There are a lot of sites that were started by "some random blogger who's never been seen by more than 5 people before in is life" (like Fark, Slashdot, RedState, Daily Kos) and are now a big deal in both the online world and the offline one.

There are a lot of sites that were started by "some random blogger who's never been seen by more than 5 people before in is life" (like Fark, Slashdot, RedState, Daily Kos) and are now a big deal in both the online world and the offline one.

Yes, and for every one of those you can name, there are at least 100k that aren't worth the hard drive space they occupy or the air their authors breath.

There are exceptions to every rule, but in this case the exceptions don't need the law to be changed, and more importa

That is like saying that because so many politicians have made speeches, 'I have a Dream' and 'The Gettysburg Address' are ruined by that.
All Persons have Free Speech, their quality has nothing to do with the crap others say. This is simply an extension of it.

One of the sports blogs that I regularly read, which will remain unmentioned for fear of the Slashdot effect, actually convinced the NFL to give him a press pass to the NFL Scouting Combine. Since I started reading his blog in '08, the writer has ingratiated himself with the local* beat guys, get an article published in the New York Times, and built a rapport with members of the national sports media and NFL Players. When it counts, he puts in just as much work as the beat writers and his analysis is often a step ahead of theirs, even with less access. I have absolutely no problem with giving him a press pass.

Nate Silver, from fivethirtyeight.com, also provides excellent political commentary. His primary work is with polls, and we was able to correctly predict 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 presidential election. He has also contributed to ESPN, Slate, Sports Illustrated, The New York Times, and the New York Sun. Again, I hardly have an issue with him receiving a press pass.

As stated in the article, there are requirements in place for attaining a press pass. I'm sure this will be a work in progress, but opening up the news reporting mechanism in this country can hardly be a bad thing.

*He lives in New York, but covers the Green Bay(Wisconsin) Packers. He gets regular commentary from writers in Green Bay and Milwaukee, the two largest markets that cover the team.

There are a number of "Press" parking spots in NYC. A large number of people get the passes for free parking and get maps detailing the locations of these spots. You are not allowed to park in these spots without either the press license plate or a placard in your window, if you do have either of those, free parking.

I have mixed feelings about this. I was a freelance business writer during the end of the DotCom boom. I actually did have some published pieces, and because of that, I didn't have too hard a problem getting into MOST industry events (where I was professional and actually working).

However, those same tech events were even then littered with "faux press" already--guys who showed up with huge empty duffel bags for the sole purpose of hoarding all of the free crap that they could grab, like T-shirts, software

Traditional print hasn't figured out how to stay competitive in the new world and is reducing quality of reporting by reducing to a skeleton staff. Might as well remove the barriers and allow the alternative media equal footing. Sure there are a lot of schmucks with blogs, but there are also a lot of knowledgeable and passionate folks out there who write blogs.
Sure the wrinkles still need to be worked out, as in, what, if any, should the qualifications be for bloggers. Should it be based on readership? Pa

Now that I've been endowed with the entirely necessary indiscriminate press pass for my work in blogging old cartoons; I suddenly feel it's my civic duty to attend every single event I can with my new press credentials before someone eventually takes them away

If the only qualification for being a journalist is "having an email address", where do we get accountability? Real journalists take classes on ethics and have an employer who can fire them. It's easier to blackball a journalist out of the field than it is to prevent a blogger from posting.

i dislike the idea if bloggers as journalists more than i dislike people writing in a professional capacity and calling it blogging.